Eminent Domain Leads to Blackmail

[DancingBear]

You need a new hypothetical as the one used before clearly states that the need for the new firehouse is a result of the new development by a private investor.

You need to stop assuming away the difficult part of the hypothetical. The quote says:

...this development will mean we need a new fire station in the area.

NOT that a new fire station is needed for this development alone. It's entirely consistent with the 200 homes/1000 homes scenario outlined above.

And if you're going to quote me, please use the entire quote and not just the first part about private development.

Okay:

No matter how you want to slice this pie, it all starts with private development and NOT the public good.

and a further quote from you:

A library is for the public good. A school is for the public good. A hospital is for the public good. One thousand homes, built by a private developer, is NOT for the public good because, unlike the library/school/hospital, the public cannot use that development unless they own the private home.

In the hypothetical, the developer is building 200 homes. 800 homes exist in the area, also built, earlier, by developers. Your home is being taken to build a firehouse to serve the entire area of 1000 homes. How is that not a public good?

Everybody's home when built added to the need to build firehouses, libraries, wider roads, schools, etc. Do you think your home should not have been built because at some point a new school would have to be built in your area?

 

[DancingBear]

It all sounds like the "public good" until it's YOUR home that's about to be...essentially stolen. It's EASY not to care about individual property rights when it's all just a hypothetical. Fortuneately MOST people can easily put themselves in the position of the individual getting screwed. UNfortuneately, the activist judges on the supreme court subscribe to the "good of the many" theory of socialistic BS. I hope that they come to their good senses and reverse themseves should another, similar case come their way. EVERYone wants increased tax revenue without raising their own taxes, of course, why wouldn't they? The key is, can we be creative enough to generate said income without stomping all over the constitution in the process.

The Court in the Kelo case was not being activist, they were deferring to the legislatures to make the decision about what's in the public good. That's exactly what the Rehnquist wing of the court generally does.

Eminent domain is IN the Constitution. I assume you aren't arguing that eminent domain doesn't allow private homes to be taken for firehouses, libraries and schools. The only issue then is whether something other than firehouse, libraries and schools can be a legitimate public good reason for the taking. The Kelo court said they don't want to be the ones to decide where that line is, rather it's up to elected governments.

 

[Charade]

The Court in the Kelo case was not being activist, they were deferring to the legislatures to make the decision about what's in the public good. That's exactly what the Rehnquist wing of the court generally does.

Eminent domain is IN the Constitution. I assume you aren't arguing that eminent domain doesn't allow private homes to be taken for firehouses, libraries and schools. The only issue then is whether something other than firehouse, libraries and schools can be a legitimate public good reason for the taking. The Kelo court said they don't want to be the ones to decide where that line is, rather it's up to elected governments.

Do you really believe that the framers intended "public good" to mean private development of private property taken via eminent domain to increase the tax receipts? Sounds like an easy way out for the local government by getting someone else to do the heavy lifting.

 

[reeeoga]

You need to stop assuming away the difficult part of the hypothetical. The quote says:

NOT that a new fire station is needed for this development alone. It's entirely consistent with the 200 homes/1000 homes scenario outlined above.

Okay:

and a further quote from you:

In the hypothetical, the developer is building 200 homes. 800 homes exist in the area, also built, earlier, by developers. Your home is being taken to build a firehouse to serve the entire area of 1000 homes. How is that not a public good?

Everybody's home when built added to the need to build firehouses, libraries, wider roads, schools, etc. Do you think your home should not have been built because at some point a new school would have to be built in your area?

Assuming the developer has room for 200 new homes, the developer can then set asside some area for a new library/fire house/school.

The problem with the new Kelo decision is that it gives E.D. powers for more taxes. That is not a Public Good. That is a Big Government Good. The problem with Big Government is that it keeps getting Bigger. That leades to more Big Government Good and less Public Good. Bigger Government means more intrusion into you/mine/your neighbors life.

Kelo also removes or alters a fundamental principal of our Founding Fathers: everyone is created equal (modified over time to include everyone: Women, blacks, etc. ). That means that I have as much right to keep my home as the developer has to build new homes. If the developer wants my home, they should convence me to sell. If they can't, too bad.

Edit to add: Good Gravy: I think I just agreed with LuvDuke again.

 

[LuvDuke]

Assuming the developer has room for 200 new homes, the developer can then set asside some area for a new library/fire house/school.

The problem with the new Kelo decision is that it gives E.D. powers for more taxes. That is not a Public Good. That is a Big Government Good. The problem with Big Government is that it keeps getting Bigger. That leades to more Big Government Good and less Public Good. Bigger Government means more intrusion into you/mine/your neighbors life.

Kelo also removes or alters a fundamental principal of our Founding Fathers: everyone is created equal (modified over time to include everyone: Women, blacks, etc. ). That means that I have as much right to keep my home as the developer has to build new homes. If the developer wants my home, they should convence me to sell. If they can't, too bad.

Edit to add: Good Gravy: I think I just agreed with LuvDuke again.

I'm irresistible ........ just ask John.

 

[LuvDuke]

You need to stop assuming away the difficult part of the hypothetical. The quote says:

NOT that a new fire station is needed for this development alone. It's entirely consistent with the 200 homes/1000 homes scenario outlined above.

Okay:

and a further quote from you:

In the hypothetical, the developer is building 200 homes. 800 homes exist in the area, also built, earlier, by developers. Your home is being taken to build a firehouse to serve the entire area of 1000 homes. How is that not a public good?

Everybody's home when built added to the need to build firehouses, libraries, wider roads, schools, etc. Do you think your home should not have been built because at some point a new school would have to be built in your area?

I thought this horse was dead, but it just opened its eye and winked.

Without the development by a private developer, there wouldn't be a need for a new firehouse.

And that's what you want to gloss over. Your hypothetical starts with private development by private investors and ends with the confiscation of private land to service that private development.

I'll repeat my quote because it's still valid no matter how many scenarios or caveats you wish to add to your hypothetical:

No matter how you want to slice this pie, it all starts with private development and NOT the public good.

 

[punkin]

I thought this horse was dead, but it just opened its eye and winked.

Without the development by a private developer, there wouldn't be a need for a new firehouse.

And that's what you want to gloss over. Your hypothetical starts with private development by private investors and ends with the confiscation of private land to service that private development.

I'll repeat my quote because it's still valid no matter how many scenarios or caveats you wish to add to your hypothetical:

I just want to beat this horse a little more by adding that if a developer can build 200 homes, why should he not be required to set aside land for a new firehouse? Why should my land be used? Did I ask for 200 new families in my neighborhood? Am I getting any benefit from this development?

 

[Charade]

I'm irresistible ........ just ask John.

Yeah, and now that I know you have a thing for thongs.

 

[reeeoga]

I'm irresistible ........ just ask John.

Being the Confident Hetero Male that I am I must Ask: Are you A Girl type Person or a Boy type Person?

 

[Charade]

Being the Confident Hetero Male that I am I must Ask: Are you A Girl type Person or a Boy type Person?

She's an girl type person. Slightly seasoned.

 

[LuvDuke]

She's an girl type person. Slightly seasoned.

Swine.

"Slightly seasoned"? You're my kind of swine.

 

[reeeoga]

Swine.

"Slightly seasoned"? You're my kind of swine.

Only slightly? I'm Cajun and like a lot of Seasoning.